Legal News | 21.07.25

Standish v Standish – Supreme Court Clarifies the Sharing Principle in Divorce

On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of Standish v Standish [2025]. By the time of the Judgment, the husband was 72 years old and the wife 57.

Background

The parties married in 2005 and had two children together; this was a second marriage for both. The husband had considerable pre-marital wealth.

In 2017, the husband transferred assets with a value of approximately £80 million pounds into the wife’s sole name as part of a tax planning scheme.  The parties had intended that the wife would place the monies into trust for the children, thus reducing inheritance tax.  The wife however, retained the assets in her sole name.

The parties separated in 2020 and the matter came before the High Court in 2022.  The Court at trial found that the transfer of the 2017 assets had made them matrimonial and it followed therefore that they formed part of the assets available for sharing upon divorce.  The Court further found that because the source of the assets was primarily the husband, the assets should be split 60/40 in favour of the husband.

Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal, which found that most of the 2017 assets were non-matrimonial but 25% were matrimonial.  The 75% non-matrimonial assets were ordered to be returned to the husband and half of the remaining 25% was to be returned to him, with the wife retaining the other half.

The wife then appealed to the Supreme Court. Her position was that the Court of Appeal placed too much weight on the husband being the primary source of the 2017 assets. Her case was that the 2017 transfer was a gift to her by her Husband.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.

This is an extremely helpful judgment as it gave guidance on the sharing principle.  Key points arising out of the judgment are as follows:

• The distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property – ownership of an asset does not determine whether it is matrimonial or non-matrimonial.
• The Court gave clear guidance that the sharing principle only applies to matrimonial property (although made it clear that non-matrimonial property could still form part of a settlement if needs or compensation required it).
• The starting point for matrimonial property is that it should be shared equally, although there can be justification for departure from this, for example, needs.
• The Court gave guidance as to how non-matrimonial property could be “matrimonialised”. The Court would need to consider whether, over time, the parties had been treating the asset as shared between them.
• A transfer for tax purposes only would not matrimonialise an asset.

The Importance of Nuptial Agreements

An ONS Survey in 2023 recorded that of couples who married in 1998, 40.7% were divorced by their 25^th wedding anniversary.  Bearing this in mind, nuptial agreements are becoming increasingly important.

Whilst nuptial agreements are not legally binding in England and Wales, the law has developed since the case of Radmacher v Granatino in October 2010.  No agreement can override the Court’s power to make orders within a divorce; however, the agreement itself would be considered a relevant circumstance of the case that the Court should have regard to, and if fairly entered into, parties can expect to be held to their agreement.

Had the Standishes entered into a pre or post nuptial agreement, they would have had much greater clarity on their legal position and potentially saved themselves a significant amount of legal fees.

Transfers for Tax Purposes between Spouses

Whilst the Court made it clear that a transfer for tax purposes alone would not ‘matrimonialise’ an asset, further dealings with such an asset which meant the parties were treating it as shared could have the effect of matrimonialising it.  When acting for parties when large transfers of assets are contemplated between spouses, it would be appropriate for advisors to contemplate whether a pre or post nuptial agreement should be entered into at the time.